2019 Supreme(SC) 72

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1120 of 2017)
Decided On : 25-01-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Additional evidence should be taken u/s 391 if necessary to decide the appeal to secure ends of justice.
Complainant cannot be allowed to make any capital of an inadvertent typing ‘mistake’.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 391 r/w 386(b) – Additional evidence to be taken if necessary to decide the appeal to secure ends of justice – Such evidence should be one lack of which will result in failure of justice – Such power of appellate court is without fetters. (Para 14, 16)

       AIR 1965 SC 1887; (2001) 4 SCC 759 – Relied upon

       (2010) 1 SCC 322 : AIR 2010 SC 840 – Referred

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 391 – Appellant seeking to prove documents already available on record – High Court’s observation of filing application for additional being at belated stage uncalled for – Filing of the application before the High Court to accept certified copy of the Trust Deed and the Resolution and permit the appellant to lead evidence – Cannot be said to be malafide motive of the accused – An accused, who had been convicted, has right to take all the grounds and also lead additional evidence, which is necessary in deciding the appeal. (Para 19)

       © Administration of justice – Delay – Prosecution taking twelve years in leading evidence before the trial court – Judgment by trial court delivered on 07.10.2013 – Appeal filed on 08.10.2013 – Held, High Court incorrectly observed that appellant intended to delay the appeal to eternity. (Para 20)

       (d) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Omission of word ‘not’ in copy of Trust deed – An inadvertent typing ‘mistake’ – Complainant cannot be allowed to make any capital of such mistake. (Para 23)

       Facts of the case:

       A Regimental Welfare Trust relating to the Scinde Horse Regiment of Indian Army was registered on 27.06.1959. The Trust owned various immovable properties including agricultural land in Village Bichaie, Phoolpur and Beehat in Tehsil-Bilaspur, District-Rampur. The respondent No.2 was in possession of 50 acres of agricultural land of the trust since 1975 in Village-Bichaie as thekedar. Other agricultural land of the trust in three villages of Tehsil-Bilaspur were given to different persons as thekedar.

       On 18.10.1989, a deed of declaration of trust was executed by the Commandant of the Scinde Horse Regiment as Chairman of the Trust claiming it to be a new Trust Deed without changing the nature of the trust. In the deed dated 18.10.1989 (registered at Delhi), details of trust land in District- Rampur were also mentioned, which included 474 Bigha land in Village-Bichaie. On 18.10.1989, a Resolution No.112 was passed by the trustees where it was unanimously decided to authorise Col. Ravi Inder Singh, Brig. Sukhjeet Singh, MVC, Maj. Gen. B.S. Malik and Ris Maj. Roshanlal to act in the name of the Trust and on behalf of the trustees to sell the trust farm land alongwith buildings thereon situated in villages Bichaie, Phoolpur and Beehat.

       A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered with Scinde Horse Trust and respondent No.2-Shri Hargursharan Singh (complainant) and other purchasers for purchase of the land. On 28.04.1991, another MOU was executed between Shri Hargursharan Singh (complainant) and other purchasers by which complainant was to acquire 40 acres of land at the rate of Rs.44,000/45,000/- per acre of land. On 03.07.1991, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 100,400/- to Col. Ravi Inder Singh as earnest money.

       The land being not sold to the complainant, he lodged FIR on 21.12.1991 under Section 420/406 IPC.

       Almost similar allegations were made by one Shri Fateh Singh against the same accused wherein Shri Fateh Singh claimed that he has paid an amount of Rs.75,600/- as earnest money to Col. Ravi Inder Singh on 03.07.1991 and sale having not been executed, the FIR be registered.

       The appellant, who was one of the accused alongwith other accused filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 6027 of 1993 and 6028 of 1993 praying for quashing the FIRs in case Crime No. 315 of 1991 and 315-A of 1991 and the orders summoning the accused persons by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

       The High Court allowed the applications in part, set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. High Court further directed that Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take cognizance under Section 420/34 IPC afresh against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and issue process accordingly. Prayer for quashing of the FIR and the Charge Sheet was refused. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were also discharged.

       The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and awarded sentence of five years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/-. The other co-accused Col. Ravi Inder Singh having died during the trial, the appellant was taken into custody and sent to the prison.

       On 08.10.2013, a Criminal Appeal was filed by appellant in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Rampur. On 26.06.2014, application under Section 391 Cr.P.C.(14 Kha) was filed for placing on record the said Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 and Resolution No. 112.

       Another application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. (17 Kha) was filed on 15.07.2014 praying for summoning the witnesses to prove the Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 and Resolution No.112. Both the applications were rejected.

       Against the order dated 02.11.2015, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the High Court by the applicant, which has been rejected by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellate Court committed error in not exercising jurisdiction under Section 391 Cr.P.C. in accepting the second Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 and the Resolution No.112 dated 18.10.1989 and refusing the appellant to lead evidence to prove the documents.

       Result: Appeal allowed.